To be, or not to be state capitalism, By The Socialist Party

[TremulousTetra]

You are right. Surplus value is only in reference to commodity production. I think there is a distinction between extraction of surplus value and appropriation and consumption of a surplus. State expenditure, including possibly vast wealth consumed by the state's bureaucracy, is not evidence of extraction of surplus value but only of consumption of surplus. The extraction of surplus value occurs when the owner of the means of production gets a return on the production of commodities sold in a market.

Yes, yes! BUT!!!!

It is quite possible that these Marxist terms are a nonsense. It seems quite possible to me that the appropriation and consumption of surplus is identical to the extraction of surplus value in the former Soviet Union. I would be quite sympathetic to this point of view. But otherwise we have to identify who it is who gets a return on their capital.

the capitalist gets to return on capital invested, but what for?

the educational I spoke of earlier, there was something else in it that came up. The capitalists are alienated. For what Marx is talking about when he talks about alienation, is the lack of control over the system.

The problem with this "The extraction of surplus value occurs when the owner of the means of production gets a return on the production of commodities sold in a market" is that it is only one half of the dialectic, one half of the cycle of money. The other half is as Marx said "Accumulate, accumulate! That is Moses and the prophets! ..." They have no control in the matter, they have to reinvest, to seek accumulation in their capital insanely. This insanity is the basis of the, the precursor of classic capitalist economic crisis as described by Marx. Over investment in the means of production, leads to the growth in the organic composition of capital, and the tendency for the rate of profit to fall. As you say

Even more than that, we have to identify why anybody cares about getting a return on their capital. Its not pure greed that motivates the capitalist, its the need to stay in the market.

You deny the existence of the dialectics in Marx, but it is there over and over and over in Das Kapital.

A theory of state capitalism is a theory of super-monopoly capitalism where there is only one giant conglomerate ie. the state. Sure this conglomerate buys and sells its commodities on the world market, but it can shield itself from the world market when it needs to - monopoly on foreign trade. It does not need to remain competative because foreign capitalists are prevented from buying it out - there are no supra-national laws regulating the market that it need comply with.

the first bit is right, but state capitalism has to remain competitive, because it is competing militarily.

Modern warfare, is total warfare. One economy pitted against another. It wasn't superior tactics, personnel etc. that won the Second World War, it was the strength of the combined Allied economies, whose means of production could out compete the none Allied economies, in producing the means of warfare.

Likewise, in the end it was the superior capabilities of the American economy to produce surplus value which could be taxed and subverted into a military production, that finally broke the Russian economy/state.

The conglomerate would not need to increase exploitation of the workers. It could extract greater surplus simply by raising prices and there would be nothing to stop it doing that. The working class would be exploited equally as consumers as they are as producers - they would cease to be a proletariat in any classical Marxist sense. The conglomerate would not need to invest in new productive forces - if the state capitalists don't need any more riches they don't need to develop anything - just let exploitation continue at its current rate. Why collectivise agriculture?

Of course Tony Cliff has the state capitalists motivated by military competition. But military expenditure is not, for the most part, commodity production ie. they cannot extract surplus value via state expenditure on the military except when they sell arms. But Cliff's theory is not to do with arms sales. If military competition is so vitally important then state capitalism would have to be abolished as state capitalism would be far too lethalgic to bother with military matters.

In short if Russia was state capitalist the economy would be far more stagnant and the society would actually be far less exploitative than it was. State capitalism relies on an analogy with capitalism not super-monopoly capitalism while it nevertheless theorises the existence of super-monopoly capitalism. The very fact that Russia had similarities with capitalist economies disproves the theory of state capitalism.

the main point here is, the military expenditure IS the surplus value. There is no need to extract surplus value from the military production. Just like the private capitalist directs what could be a surplus value into irrational over investment manufacturing competition, the state capitalist over invests in irrational military competition. But if total war is economy war, then manufacturing competition and military competition are to side's of the same coin.

This goes back to a example of feudal society. The lords and the church irrationally used up the surplus value in different ways, but the way they achieved their surplus value was the same, we agreed. You're going back to seeing exploitation in terms of property, rather than a system.

PS. how can the conglomerate increase the exploitation of workers, simply by increasing prices, without increasing the wages the conglomerate pays to the workers? Again the there is two sides to the cycle, a dialectic.

 

[Knotted]

yes but you have to recognise the change, the dialectic, in Hegel himself as well. He became more and more conservative, the further he got from the most important event in this life, the French revolution.

Kant and Schelling had materialist tendencies, but Hegel was always an idealist. He was always conservative and he was always revolutionary.

However;

On that point 1.
'The true is the whole,' Hegel wrote.1 http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj78/callinic.htm
On that point 2.

To prove my point I would have to go through Hegel and show exactly what he meant, and that's going to be really painful for all involved. Unless you really want to do this, you should take my word for it or better - read Hegel yourself and come to your own conclusions. In my view, my chameleon example illustrates exactly what is going on with this dialectic of the whole and the parts. It is not a method of looking at whole's first but a method of looking at parts as inseparable from the whole. Its not particularly deep or mysterious.

However there are a couple of passages in this article which are relevant to the broader debate.

In other words, production and consumption are not immediately identical with one another, as bourgeois economists claim when they assert that supply generates its own demand. They are 'different aspects' of a contradictory whole. The 'unity' of production and consumption finds expression in their antagonism, the fact that commodity producers cannot automatically find markets for their goods, and therefore the real interdependence of production and consumption 'forcibly asserts itself in crises', when commodities go unsold in huge numbers.

It is interesting to see how this relates to the USSR with its legendary production of waste and its lack of periodic economic crises. If the state controls the market via price setting then the antagonism mentioned above is reduced. Indeed if the USSR was state capitalist so that it could a) control its internal markets and b) was only interested in extracting surplus value for a state capitalist elite, I have argued that this antagonism should disappear altogether. It would be completely arbitrary whether profits are made from exploiting the workers or from the consumers. State capitalism means the irrelevance of historical materialism.

Think of it this way. Classically the capitalists will tend to invest more in highly productive industries as they are more competitive thus increasing the organic composition of capital and thus lowering the profit rate. However if the capitalists do not need to remain competitive then they do not need to increase the organic composition of capital - in fact it should be a disadvantage if they do. State capitalism would therefore see no contradiction between production and consumption once a level of industrial exploitation has been established.

I think state capitalism as a thought experiment is very interesting. It seems to show Marxist theory breaking down. We no longer need to understand things in terms of production when consumption would do just as well. But then who seriously thinks state capitalism existed? The state capitalist elite would be pure parasites unable to advance the economy at all and such a system could not last months nevermind decades.

Marx sums up the methodological difference between himself and Mill thus: 'Where the economic relation - and therefore the categories expressing it - includes contradictions, opposites and likewise the unity of opposites, he emphasises the aspect of the unity of the contradictions and denies the contradictions. He transforms the unity of opposites into the direct identity of opposites'.

Marx could have said exactly this with respect to Tony Cliff's identity of politics and economics.

 

[Knotted]

Yes, yes! BUT!!!!

the capitalist gets to return on capital invested, but what fall?

the educational I spoke of earlier, there was something else in it that came up. The capitalists are alienated. For what Marx is talking about when he talks about alienation, is the lack of control over the system.

The problem with this "The extraction of surplus value occurs when the owner of the means of production gets a return on the production of commodities sold in a market" is that it is only one half of the dialectic, one half of the cycle of money. The other half is as Marx said "Accumulate, accumulate! That is Moses and the prophets! ..." They have no control in the matter, they have to reinvest, to seek accumulation in their capital insanely. This insanity is the basis of the, the precursor of classic capitalist economic crisis as described by Marx. Over investment in the means of production, leads to the growth in the organic composition of capital, and the tendency there rate of profit to for. As you say

To complete that quote:
'Accumulation for accumulation's sake, production for production's sake: by this formula classical economy expressed the historical mission of the bourgeoisie, and did not for a single instant deceive itself over the birth-throes of wealth.'

But Cliff has the state capitalist accumulating for the sake of geo-politics and the need for an arms race.

More Marx:

'Moreover, the development of capitalist production makes it constantly necessary to keep increasing the amount of the capital laid out in a given industrial undertaking, and competition makes the immanent laws of capitalist production to be felt by each individual capitalist, as external coercive laws. It compels him to keep constantly extending his capital, in order to preserve it, but extend it he cannot, except by means of progressive accumulation.'

The capitalist extends his production because of competition. Competition is the coercive force of accumulation.

Also see:

'The monopoly of capital becomes a fetter upon the mode of production, which has sprung up and flourished along with, and under it. Centralization of the means of production and socialization of labor at last reach a point where they become incompatible with their capitalist integument. Thus integument is burst asunder. The knell of capitalist private property sounds. The expropriators are expropriated.'

Marx predicts a limit to the extend of centralisation. If the USSR did not meet that limit, nowhere will. Extreme monopoly, extreme centralisation is not compatable with capitalism even though it is a tendency of capitalism.

You deny the existence of the dialectics in Marx, but it is there over and over and over in Das Kapital.

I don't deny the existence of dialectics in Marx.

the first bit is right, but state capitalism has to remain competitive, because it is competing militarily.

If by 'remain competitive' you mean 'remain militarily competitive' then the above is a tautology. If by 'remain competitive' you mean 'remain economically competitive' then I have to ask how did it compete at all? What does this mean?

Modern warfare, is total warfare. One economy pitted against another. It wasn't superior tactics, personnel etc. that won the Second World War, it was the strength of the combined Allied economies, whose means of production could out compete the none Allied economies, in producing the means of warfare.

Likewise, in the end it was the superior capabilities of the American economy to produce surplus value which could be taxed and subverted into a military production, that finally broke the Russian economy/state.

Do you not see that this is an inversion of the relationship between economic base and economic superstructure? It seems that you are arguing that the Russians and the Americans employed a capitalist economy in order to fight the cold war. As if the state could choose what mode of production it rests upon.

the main point here is, the military expenditure IS the surplus value. There is no need to extract surplus value from the military production. Just like the private capitalist directs what could be a surplus value into irrational over investment manufacturing competition, the state capitalist over invests in irrational military competition. But if total war is economy war, then manufacturing competition and military competition are to side's of the same coin.

Military expenditure is not, for the most part, the production of commodities. It is not a form of economic competition. It is certainly true that the capitalist will allow the state to consume some of the surplus that the capitalist produces for the long term interests of the capitalist class. However the consumption of a surplus does not imply that surplus value has been extracted at all.

This goes back to a example of feudal society. The lords and the church irrationally used up the surplus value in different ways, but the way they achieved their surplus value was the same, we agreed. You're going back to seeing exploitation in terms of property, rather than a system.

They used up surplus not surplus value. Surplus value only makes sense with respect to capitalist property relations.

PS. how can the conglomerate increase the exploitation of workers, simply by increasing prices, without increasing the wages the conglomerate pays to the workers? Again the there is two sides to the cycle, a dialectic.

It is circular but it isn't dialectical because it is immediate. Note how you have to use underconsumptionist arguments. Crisis in a state capitalist society is due to underconsumption because overproduction=underconsumption. There is no contradiction between consumption and production in a state capitalist society.

 

[durruti02]

BUT this contemporary Leninist is agreeing with you, and opposing the obscuring.

good!

 

[TremulousTetra]

OK, I'll just clear up where you have misunderstood me, or I have not been clear.

Cliff didn't have the state capitalist accumulating for the sake of geopolitical I arms race, that was the situation the bureaucracy found itself in. Just like the trade union bureaucracy, that starts off defending workers, but then starts defending the trade union from the states, the Russian bureaucracy gradually move from defending workers to defending itself from states.

I apologise, I assume you accept the dialectic in Marx Works, but reject it, yes?

Yes I did mean that the Russian economy had to be made more competitive, as in more able to produce surplus value, so that surplus value could be used to be insanely spent on arms in the same way the private capitalist insanely spends on over investment. They are two side's of the same coin, but even that coin has heads and tails, in other words there are differences, it is possible to be to side's of the same coin, and for competition to materialise in different ways.

I don't understand your point about the inversion, neither Russia or America chose the economy they fought the Cold War with, they each fought the cold war with the one they had. The question is, why did they fight the Cold War?

Yes I made a slip of the tongue with surplus value and the feudal society, but the slip of the tongue does not negate the point made.

My point about waged labour was that the state is not just a monopolist, it is also monopsonist, and so increasing prices, would just be robbing Peter to pay Paul. In order to pay the increase in prices, the workers would need more wages, from the people they are paying the increase in prices to, rendering the whole process pointless.

However, there is a dialectic in the circulation of wages. In fact it's the anti theses problem, to the problem of over investment. If the workers were given the full value of everything they produced, then they will have the full purchasing power to consume everything produced, for they are equal values. If this were case, there could never be over investment, because there wouldn't be a surplus value to over invest. It's the extraction of surplus value that creates this contradiction, and so the dialectical driving force to change.

 

[Knotted]

OK, I'll just clear up where you have misunderstood me, or I have not been clear.

Cliff didn't have the state capitalist accumulating for the sake of geopolitical I arms race, that was the situation the bureaucracy found itself in. Just like the trade union bureaucracy, that starts off defending workers, but then starts defending the trade union from the states, the Russian bureaucracy gradually move from defending workers to defending itself from states.

Is a trade union an exploiting capitalist company?

I apologise, I assume you accept the dialectic in Marx Works, but reject it, yes?

I don't think there is any agreement on what the dialectic is, I don't think there can be, I don't think there should be. The dialectic is only discovered after the theory, it is not a method, it is a family of philosophical critiques. Engels' laws of dialectics are at best misnomers, if they are of any use at all they should be treated as gentle nudges for thought away from various 'metaphysical' modes of thought. There is much more to the dialectic than Engels' laws though. Engels' laws are like sketches of the dialectic - like a painter painting something they dreamt. The most important thing is clarity of thought, as soon as you start seeking an arcane methodology then you might as well use astrology.

Yes I did mean that the Russian economy had to be made more competitive, as in more able to produce surplus value, so that surplus value could be used to be insanely spent on arms in the same way the private capitalist insanely spends on over investment. They are two side's of the same coin, but even that coin has heads and tails, in other words there are differences, it is possible to be to side's of the same coin, and for competition to materialise in different ways.

You don't need to extract surplus value in order to consume a surplus.

I don't understand your point about the inversion, neither Russia or America chose the economy they fought the Cold War with, they each fought the cold war with the one they had. The question is, why did they fight the Cold War?

I think I am misinterpreting you here. Sorry.

Yes I made a slip of the tongue with surplus value and the feudal society, but the slip of the tongue does not negate the point made.

Well it negates the point about military competition.

My point about waged labour was that the state is not just a monopolist, it is also monopsonist, and so increasing prices, would just be robbing Peter to pay Paul. In order to pay the increase in prices, the workers would need more wages, from the people they are paying the increase in prices to, rendering the whole process pointless.

You are absolutely right to say the sate is monopsonist as well as monopolist. However my point is that if you reduce wages then you will be robbing Peter to pay Paul in exactly the same way as you would in raising prices. Really what would happen is the state would optimise wages and prices to extract the most profit and leave it there - the development of productive forces would simply halt. But really just as the state is equally a monopolist as a monopsonist, the economy is consumer based equally as it is production based and the general populace are just as much consumers as they are workers.

However, there is a dialectic in the circulation of wages. In fact it's the anti theses problem, to the problem of over investment. If the workers were given the full value of everything they produced, then they will have the full purchasing power to consume everything produced, for they are equal values. If this were case, there could never be over investment, because there wouldn't be a surplus value to over invest. It's the extraction of surplus value that creates this contradiction, and so the dialectical driving force to change.

No it is the appropriation of surplus in general - not necessarily in the specific form of extraction of surplus value - that allows (possibly forces) growth/accumulation.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Hi knotted;

I hope you will indulge me just interacting with you as a human being for a moment, instead of just discussing our politics, as if our political perspectives were not shaped by our different experiences of life.

The first thing I'd like to say, is well done on your contribution to this thread. We may not come to the same destination, ever, but we have travelled a long way, and they say travel broadens the mind. And in that travelling, I've really enjoyed the way you have presented your arguments, and countered other people's point, in a,,,, what can I say,,,,,,,,, I can think of lots of words, but the one that springs most prominent is, in a fraternal fashion. I would say you seem to have presented your ideas like a caring teacher, with patience and a genuine interest in the topic, but I also sense you are open minded enough to be a student at the same time. I am sorry if this is all too flowery, but you genuinely seemed one of the interestng people I've ever spoke to on this forum.

One of the things that has really intrigued me about Internet forum boards, is why you can never get people to understand your perspective. I have spoke to many different sort of people, from one political extreme to the other, but very rarely has somebody said to me, "that was really interesting, I have never understood that point before, and now it makes sense". People have done that in a pm. to me, but it has been very very rare. Conversely, the same is true for myself and other people's writings. And even in this conversation, where I feel you are one of the honest people I have ever spoke to, I don't feel I'm ever going to convince you of my viewpoint, or vice versa. [I have had a similar experience with a similarly honest person durrito, actually]

What I believe is this, people from any established perspective, their perspective is usually like one of those giant Egyptian roofs, set a top 100 pillars. Perspective is based upon, one pillar which may be economics, another pillar which may be alienation, and so on and so on. So in order to ever really challenge a political perspective, you have the most almost impossible task of having to knock down 100 pillars, 100 arguments, before you can get to the perspective. And that is where I feel we are at. [I think it is this factor, that result in a lot of incredulity and charges of dishonesty on Internet forums.]

However, I might not be able to convince anybody of anything, but what still does intrigue me, is what makes people tick. Why do they have that political perspective? On what do they base their perspectives? So with that in mind, perhaps I can explain why think I have my perspective on the dialectic.

I did start to explain the human experience element of understanding about my perspective, in my feeble attempt to explain my socialist worker interpretation of the dialectic. I did say I would come back to my experience with regard to manual labour, and I never did. So;

To prove my point I would have to go through Hegel and show exactly what he meant, and that's going to be really painful for all involved. Unless you really want to do this, you should take my word for it or better - read Hegel yourself and come to your own conclusions. In my view, my chameleon example illustrates exactly what is going on with this dialectic of the whole in the parts. It is not a method of looking at whole's first but a method of looking at parts as inseparable from the whole. Its not particularly deep or mysterious.

I honestly respect where you're coming from there. Butcher's would say exactly the same thing, "go read it for yourself". However, I am a product of my experiences. And whilst my limited academic background is an obvious hindrance in my ability to communicate my ideas and perhaps to understand them in the way you do, I can't also help feeling it helps me, and produces my understanding of the dialectic. [though I do have to emphasise at this point, I do honestly admire the amount of literature people like butcher's, yourself, Chris Harman, Alex callinicos etc. have read. Without such people, I wouldn't be able to cherry pick.]

You see, I feel manual labour gives you an understanding, in fact inculcates an understanding of the dialectic. There is a constant process in manual labour, where you are working with your material existence, but you constantly have to abstract to another existence, problem solve the problems in the real world, and act upon the real world to change the situation, in the direction you want. This accurately describes the process I would go through every day as a truck mechanic.

So when I came to education, as I said earlier, I'd never read a serious book until I entered socialist worker politics. And, I came with that mentality of wanting to is to strip it down and see how it worked. And I went on and on and on, because as I spoke to people they explained the sense, the rhyme and reason of my existence. What I mean is, my existence as a Mechanic, seemed random, and without logic, the boss screwed me over just because he was a bastard. But when socialist worker described class relations, it made sense of my existence. And when socialist worker explain Northern Ireland, I was completely besotted with how people could explain to me, something that had been in front of my face every day of my life, and but never made any sense whatsoever.

So I kept going on an on, deeper into socialist worker politics, until I found myself reading capital, in a reading group. And then comes in that story about drinking with that comrade, and talking about Marxism like a spider's web. And how I knew there was something missing from my understanding. How did I know, there was something missing from my understanding? And when I'd read the ISJ, I absolutely knew that I was a Marxist. Every day since that day, an understanding of the dialectic has been the most useful tool in understanding everything. I don't just mean politics, I mean everything I ever take it interest in.

To me if we take politics as an example, it is like out there in the world there are many maps of the political landscape. Some will have completely different delineations, such as fascism and anarchism, and others will only have slight variations like the socialist worker and socialist party perspectives. For me, and understandarding of the dialectic, acts as a compass, with which I can verify the maps, and can sometimes point me in the right direction, when I have no map at all.

So while I respect, and feel its valid to request me to read Hegel for myself, my experience of of becoming political, and my experiences of politicals and the academics, makes me extremely hesitant to do so.

My experience has been with the academics and with politicals is, sometimes they analyse the trees in such wonderful detail, they can't see the forest. I sometimes feel my flitting from flower to flower, like a butterfly, does result in the paucity of my argument to substantiate my theses, but the same time possibly allow me to appreciate the majesty of the panoramic theoretical viewpoint.

So I hope that explains how I've come to my perspective on the dialectic, and why for those reasons, I will probably never end up agreeing with you. That is not necessarily a bad thing for the movement, or ourselves. And doesn't mean we cannot broaden our minds through the travel we have experienced.

I would be interested if you could fill in some of the blanks on you, and how you believe you have come to your political perspectives. What is your political background, or do you even have a perspective? Are you just an enquiring mind, which is perfectly legitimate? I don't really have any understanding of why you are coming to the conclusions you are coming.

 

[Knotted]

Where am I to start??

I don't really get on with politics for two contradictory reasons. Firstly I'm just not talented at it. I can do public speaking, but I'm no good persuading people on a one-to-one basis. I'm incredibly disorganised. In day to day practice I would be much happier being led and instructed by an authoritarian party leadership which just gives me donkey work. Decentralised structures that allow members to apply themselves creatively leave me bewildered. I have got no grasp of how to run my own life nevermind deal with other peoples problems. On the other hand I can't help but question ideas. Its not really a questioning attitude its more to do with a habit of thinking about things very intensively - without writing any of it down unfortunately. I just don't get on with party orthodoxy. As a consequence I have mulled around various left groups but I've never been able to commit either out of general disorganisation on my part or out of irritation with party doctrine. I could name CPGB(Weekly Worker), SSP, Red Action, IWCA. These organisations influenced me a lot but I don't necessarily retain that influence. In fact I've forgotten why I got involved in left wing politics in the first place - a profound sense of alienation. I remember very much wanting to be around like minded people. But I'd hate to think that my politics are reflection of my psyche - why would anybody be interested in my peculiarities? Politics is a matter of duty, I don't trust people who enjoy it too much.

Before I ever got involved, it was obvious to me that capitalism allowed the boss to wield extraordinary power over the worker. I didn't so much feel that it was an exploitative relation. Its the indignity that outrages me. Your livelihood hangs on the whims of others above you.

Trotsky's writings are hugely influential to me. Far more than any other Marxist. Things are always very clear when you read Trotsky. Even Marx seems cluttered and confused in comparison. Get rid of chapter one of capital. Don't need it.

I'm not sure I understand you when you say you find the dialectic is useful in your everyday life. Read that literally. I'm not sure - maybe I do understand. I read about the dialectic years ago and I recognise the feelings that it is something profound and something that changes your view of things. But its very hard to put a finger on why. There is a constant feeling you haven't quite understood it. I see this sort of bewilderment and awe with some people when they talk about the dialectic. Lenin's partly to blame. I read Hegel again quite carefully about a year ago and it seemed so different to how I remembered it. Big difference was reading Wittgenstein first. The difference is the sense of what philosophy is about. Its the beauty of describing the utterly mundane. Once you are sensitive to that then Hegel seems very different. He's not profound, he's just rather good. Once you get through the clutter of Hegelian language it lets you see things without so much confusion. Having said that there's a lot of chaff amongst the wheat with Hegel and he just ducks difficult questions. I would recommend Wittgenstein over Hegel. Its a very similar thing - its like a stripping away of your intellectual crutches by finding you never needed them in the first place. The more you think that the dialectic is something there to be learnt and used the less likely you are to loose your crutches - think in particular Engels on metaphysics in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.

I would recommend you read the Alebra of Revolution if you haven't. I haven't read it, but that review was impressive. Also keep in mind Calincos's criticisms. They're about right in my opinion.

If you want to read Hegel start with the introduction and the preface to Phenomenology of Spirit. Hegel is actually quite straightforward and clear when he is talking about his philosophy even if he is very difficult when he is doing his philosophy.

Next I would read Ilyenkov, Dialectical Logic.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/ilyenkov/works/essays/index.htm

Keep the following quotation in mind when ever you read (about) Hegel:
"Since Hegel looked upon this feature of human life activity exclusively through the eyes of logic, he registered it solely to the extent that it was already transformed into a scheme of thought, into a logical schema, into a rule in accordance with which man more or less consciously built this or that specific activity (be it in the material of language or something else). He therefore registered things, and the position of things (acts) located outside the individual’s consciousness and beyond his will (Dinge und Sache), exclusively as moments, as metamorphoses of thought (subjective activity), realised and realisable in natural, physical material, including in that also the organic body of man himself. The special feature of human life activity described above in Marx’s words also appeared in the Hegelian representation as a scheme of thought realised by man, as a logical figure."

Thankyou for your kind words. I would be happy to discuss philosophy with you, but I didn't think it was appropriate on this thread as it wasn't entirely necessary in my view and it would be uninteresting to a lot of the participants.

 

[durruti02]

http://classagainstclass.com/index....=20:council-communist-related-texts&Itemid=32

 

[Jean-Luc]

I see that Militant are putting their pro-ex-USSR theory (that it wasn't capitalism and was in fact not as bad as capitalism) into practice by presenting a joint list with the Stalinists (who thought it was socialism) in the coming Euroelections (see the No2EU thread). Coherent. And logical since both Trotskyists and Stalinists have always stood for state capitalism.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Knotted.
Philosophy for me is very simple, it is the search for eternal truth. Eternal truths no different to Euclids proof that there are infinitely many primes, which remains as true today as it was 2300 years ago. So for me it isn't the study of the mundane, the mundane is studied, because if we cannot deduce eternal truths from mundane, how arevwe ever going to deduce eternal truths from the more complex? In fact, the study of the mundane is massively more complex than studying mathematics.

"Do you promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?" Is the question posed in courts throughout the land. However, for Hegel this would be ridiculous. For the truth, is the whole. You cannot know the truth about anything, until you know the whole truth. You cannot know the whole truth, for knowing the whole truth is literally knowing everything there is to know. You have to know everything, because the change in one truth, affects another truth. No wonder Hegel had to resort to god.

If you read mathematics papers, they speak in a massively complex and convoluted language, so can you really expect less from philosophers? Having said that, I also believe every single one of us is a philosopher. Every single one of us is trying to find the truth, trying to make sense, of our existence, even if that truth/sense, is that there is no truth everything is just chaos. Philosophy is the compass we all use to guide our study of the evidence presented to us.

The problem with this as Hegel eluded to, and I think Gramsci developed, is that we all know, each and everyone us, only have a partial view of the evidence. A fragment of the map to guide us to understanding our existence. This is why I like to look at what makes people tick, their philosophy, because if you look at enough fragments, perhaps you'll get a bigger picture.

If you talk to a professor of mathematics, they don't do arithmetic every day. What would be exciting about that? Likewise, why constantly keep looking at individual trees, when the exciting story is looking at the whole forest? Like yourself, I honestly find Marx difficult to read at times. Hegel more so. I would rather look into lots of precis of their arguements. I have read the algebra of revolution, but to be honest I'd prefer the ISJ version, I mentioned earlier.


So where does this get us with regard to state capitalism? Nowhere really.

PS. I discussion with Dennis wasn't really about his alternative view to state capitalism, he wouldn't really be drawn on that topic, it was about a his claim that the state capitalist view wasn't a historical materialist view. I think theory of state capitalism is congruent with dialectical materialism.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I see that Militant are putting their pro-ex-USSR theory (that it wasn't capitalism and was in fact not as bad as capitalism) into practice by presenting a joint list with the Stalinists (who thought it was socialism) in the coming Euroelections (see the No2EU thread). Coherent. And logical since both Trotskyists and Stalinists have always stood for state capitalism.

God!!! Such a stance would not be a Tad stupidly dogmatic?

Agree to work upon that which you agree about, whilst accepting differences of opinion. I for one am glad the other left wing groups are eventually accepting what SW has been telling them for years. [Tonga placed firmly in cheek.]

 

[Knotted]

YUIOU

Knotted.
Philosophy for me is very simple, it is the search for eternal truth. Eternal truths no different to Euclids proof that there are infinitely many primes, which remains as true today as it was 2300 years ago. So for me it isn't the study of the mundane, the mundane is studied, because if we cannot deduce eternal truths from mundane, how arevwe ever going to deduce eternal truths from the more complex? In fact, the study of the mundane is massively more complex than studying mathematics.

We find ourselves looking to philosophy to base our beliefs and our ideas on. But in turning to philosophy we only disagree about the nature of philosophy. I strongly disagree that philosophy is about the discovery of eternal truths. Not that there are no philosophers who think that. 18th century rationalist philosopher Christian Wolfe might be an example. But since Hume, Jacobi and Kant and their respective criticism of metaphysics there are very few philosophers who would agree you about philosophy being about the search for eternal truths. That includes Hegel, Marx and Engels.

"Do you promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?" Is the question posed in courts throughout the land. However, for Hegel this would be ridiculous. For the truth, is the whole. You cannot know the truth about anything, until you know the whole truth. You cannot know the whole truth, for knowing the whole truth is literally knowing everything there is to know. You have to know everything, because the change in one truth, affects another truth. No wonder Hegel had to resort to god.

This is almost perfectly wrong. You cannot say anything at all about the whole truth, whether or not you bring God into it. Hegel was extremely scornful of such thinking. In the preface to the Phenomenology he talks about the 'night in which all cows are black'.

Hegel:

To consider any specific fact as it is in the Absolute, consists here in nothing else than saying about it that, while it is now doubtless spoken of as something specific, yet in the Absolute, in the abstract identity A = A, there is no such thing at all, for everything is there all one. To pit this single assertion, that “in the Absolute all is one”, against the organised whole of determinate and complete knowledge, or of knowledge which at least aims at and demands complete development – to give out its Absolute as the night in which, as we say, all cows are black – that is the very naïveté of emptiness of knowledge.

Hegel's philosophy is not about neglecting what he called 'determinate knowledge' for the sake of stating the fact that everything is part of a totality. This is exactly what your comrade did with the tug of war analogy. In Marx's historical materialism we have a very definite relation of economic base to ideological superstructure. To counter that relation with the idea that it is all part of the same whole is to reduce historical materialism to sheer formal emptiness. The whole of society = the whole of society. This is an out and out rejection of historical materialism and replacing it with completely empty phrases. The truth is if you think there is something dialectical about looking at wholes prior to looking at parts then you have fallen into obscurantism. It is a perfect obscurantism as you can obscure any theory you want this way. For all his faults this is not what Hegel was about.

The idea of the dialectical totality is very odd. I'm not sure where it came from. Possibly from the British Hegelians. It seems to have been popularised as a way to dissmiss Hegel - as a synthesising metaphysician in the mold of Wolfe - by analytic philosophers such as Russell and Moore who were rebelling against the British Hegelians. But anyway it has no place in Hegel and no place in Marx and Engels.

If you read mathematics papers, they speak in a massively complex and convoluted language, so can you really expect less from philosophers? Having said that, I also believe every single one of us is a philosopher. Every single one of us is trying to find the truth, trying to make sense, of our existence, even if that truth/sense, is that there is no truth everything is just chaos. Philosophy is the compass we all use to guide our study of the evidence presented to us.

I don't think so. Philosophy is the attempt at the description of the compasses we use to guide our study of the evidence among other things. The very difficulty of philosophy is the difficulty of this type of description. What philosophy does not do is provide a method itself. Philosophy should never be technical in the way mathematics is. If it were then there would be no philosophy of mathematics, just a mathematics of mathematics.

The problem with this as Hegel eluded to, and I think Gramsci developed, is that we all know, each and everyone us, only have a partial view of the evidence. A fragment of the map to guide us to understanding our existence. This is why I like to look at what makes people tick, their philosophy, because if you look at enough fragments, perhaps you'll get a bigger picture.

That's certainly an interesting problem but it isn't particularly Hegelian.

If you talk to a professor of mathematics, they don't do arithmetic every day. What would be exciting about that? Likewise, why constantly keep looking at individual trees, when the exciting story is looking at the whole forest? Like yourself, I honestly find Marx difficult to read at times. Hegel more so. I would rather look into lots of precis of their arguements. I have read the algebra of revolution, but to be honest I'd prefer the ISJ version, I mentioned earlier.

I mentioned the Preface and the Introduction to the Phenomenology earlier. These are excellent precis's of Hegel's arguements. They're also online.
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/ph/phprefac.htm
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/ph/phintro.htm

So where does this get us with regard to state capitalism? Nowhere really.

Well no, I think it is useful. Look at your OP.

So if it was not state capitalist, what was the Soviet Union?

You see the binary either/or logic. This is undialetical. You are categorising a society by its appearance and in finding what it appears to be you think you have discovered its essence. What is capitalism? What criteria are we using? How capitalist is capitalism? When you ask yourself these questions then this whole idea of an essence of capitalism becomes a bit odd if not downright absurd. When does quantity become quality? If your thinking is along the lines of 'if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it is a duck,' then you will never be able to answer this question. How much like a duck does a duck need to be before it is a duck?

Following Trotsky, I have given a criterion for what makes a capitalist society but it is not based on a look at what appears to be. How the economy functions, how workers are exploited etc. I have given a criterion which is class struggle based ie. it comes down to the economic and political relations between classes and ultimately between relationships between human beings. This is why an historical materialist looks at the state (not an amorphous concept such as 'society') and asks how the state stands in relation to class forces.

The theory you use, the criteria you use are not simple descriptions of reality they are relative to the use you put these theories to. How does a theory shed light? (cf. The absolute within the relative.)

The socialist party is absolutely right, the SW interpretation of state capitalism is probably its most important defining feature.

This is less contentious but it is an example of exactly the same undialectial thinking. What is the essence of the SWP? The theory of state capitalism? Again how are we to put this defining feature to use? Ask this question first before you look for the defining feature.

Compare with Marx in the German Ideology:

Men can be distinguished from animals by consciousness, by religion or anything else you like. They themselves begin to distinguish themselves from animals as soon as they begin to produce their means of subsistence, a step which is conditioned by their physical organisation. By producing their means of subsistence men are indirectly producing their actual material life.

To distinguish human beings from animals is arbitrary. You can do it however you like - it does not matter. Indeed you needn't make the distinction at all. Marx makes his distinction not because it defines the hidden essence of humanity - he has not discovered an eternal truth about human nature. He makes this distinction because this distinction illuminates exactly the historical, social, economic and political questions that Marx is concerned with.

PS. I discussion with Dennis wasn't really about his alternative view to state capitalism, he wouldn't really be drawn on that topic, it was about a his claim that the state capitalist view wasn't a historical materialist view. I think theory of state capitalism is congruent with dialectical materialism.

I think you underestimate Dennis.

 

[Knotted]

http://classagainstclass.com/index....=20:council-communist-related-texts&Itemid=32

That's a very Menshevik, working-class-rule-is-futile point of view. It still flounders on this idea of state capitalism. What is state capitalism? How does the state extract surplus value? The most basic questions are never answered.

I don't think Marx ever said that wage labour is predicated on capital.

 

[durruti02]

where did it say w/c rule is futile? how is it menshevik?

btw it is not about state cap .. i got distracted by Kronstadt

 

[Knotted]

where did it say w/c rule is futile? how is it menshevik?

btw it is not about state cap .. i got distracted by Kronstadt

"Lenin was right to the degree that at that moment there was no other choice, at least not in Russia."

That is Lenin was right (in 1905 it should be pointed out!) to say that the coming revolution was necessarily bourgeois and that working class revolts could not establish working class rule. Krondstadt was doomed to failure etc. etc.

Its hardly a pro-Kronstadt point of view.

 

[durruti02]

i did not say i agreed with it all .. i have only read it briefly though i did notice that line you qouted .. i just posted a link i'll have anotso her look though .. it is interesting ..

do you think most Leninists realise his revolution was bourgois?

and how is it menshevik?

 

[Knotted]

i did not say i agreed with it all .. i have only read it briefly though i did notice that line you qouted .. i just posted a link i'll have anotso her look though .. it is interesting ..

do you think most Leninists realise his revolution was bourgois?

No. They would say the February revolution was bourgeois. October was proletarian.

and how is it menshevik?

That was what seperated the Bolsheviks from the Mensheviks at that time. Is a proletarian revolution in a backward country possible?

 

[TremulousTetra]

Knotted
I'm really not sure how to respond to your post, because it doesn't always reflect on what I meant to say.

We find ourselves looking to philosophy to base our beliefs and our ideas on. But in turning to philosophy we only disagree about the nature of philosophy. I strongly disagree that philosophy is about the discovery of eternal truths. Not that there are no philosophers who think that. 18th century rationalist philosopher Christian Wolfe might be an example. But since Hume, Jacobi and Kant and their respective criticism of metaphysics there are very few philosophers who would agree you about philosophy being about the search for eternal truths. That includes Hegel, Marx and Engels.

quite prepared to accept I'm wrong on this, as I say it is my personal perception from a limited reading. Have you read Sophie's world? For someone looking at the grand narrative of philosophy, that is how she appears of to outline, isn't it?

This is almost perfectly wrong. You cannot say anything at all about the whole truth,

which is what I said, at least when I read of my words. And whether or not you read my words that way I do, it is what I meant to say

Hegel's philosophy is not about neglecting what he called 'determinate knowledge' for the sake of stating the fact that everything is part of a totality. This is exactly what your comrade did with the tug of war analogy. In Marx's historical materialism we have a very definite relation of economic base to ideological superstructure. To counter that relation with the idea that it is all part of the same whole is to reduce historical materialism to sheer formal emptiness. The whole of society = the whole of society. This is an out and out rejection of historical materialism and replacing it with completely empty phrases. The truth is if you think there is something dialectical about looking at wholes prior to looking at parts then you have fallen into obscurantism. It is a perfect obscurantism as you can obscure any theory you want this way. For all his faults this is not what Hegel was about.

The idea of the dialectical totality is very odd. I'm not sure where it came from. Possibly from the British Hegelians. It seems to have been popularised as a way to dissmiss Hegel - as a synthesising metaphysician in the mold of Wolfe - by analytic philosophers such as Russell and Moore who were rebelling against the British Hegelians. But anyway it has no place in Hegel and no place in Marx and Engels.

I don't know how you have interpreted what I had said, how you hve above. It certainly contradicts what I said earlier about feudal society. this is nothing like what John Rees was talking about in the algebra of revolution. What he does say is that the mode of production, which is indeed defined by the Class relations, is the whole. And yes, one cannot study the whole, without studying the parts. The parts are, the theses V anti theses, the feudal ruling class V the peasantry, the capitalist ruling class V working class. These classes with contradictory interests, making the whole dynamic, for ever in a process of change. It is an eternal truth from observation, as long as you have class society, you will have this class struggle which provides A dynamic for society. However, it is equally true to say, one cannot simply study the parts without awareness of their relationship to the whole. The society, the whole, is more than the sum of its parts. It's like the bourgeois method of reporting in the papers, where crime is reported as being totally without relationship to unemployment. And this was the point of the comrades tug of war analogy, it was merely meant to say or that the relationship is not passive, the economic base doesn't always determines superstructure. If the base always determines the superstructure, then you wouldn't have had a time when the superstructure was a "fetter on the means of production", would you? And even when the limits of this fettering is reached, there is no simple determinism. There can be a social revolution, but there can also be the common ruin of the contending classes. A destruction of both the superstructure and the economic base.

You see the binary either/or logic. This is undialetical. You are categorising a society by its appearance and in finding what it appears to be you think you have discovered its essence. What is capitalism? What criteria are we using? How capitalist is capitalism? When you ask yourself these questions then this whole idea of an essence of capitalism becomes a bit odd if not downright absurd. When does quantity become quality? If your thinking is along the lines of 'if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it is a duck,' then you will never be able to answer this question. How much like a duck does a duck need to be before it is a duck?

Following Trotsky, I have given a criterion for what makes a capitalist society but it is not based on a look at what appears to be. How the economy functions, how workers are exploited etc. I have given a criterion which is class struggle based ie. it comes down to the economic and political relations between classes and ultimately between relationships between human beings. This is why an historical materialist looks at the state (not an amorphous concept such as 'society') and asks how the state stands in relation to class forces.

Agreed. And the Russian State relationship to the class forces, was the relationships of capitalism, one class controlling the means of production while another class is compelled to sell its labour. [your position is confusing, earlier you are saying he was lazy to talk of feudalism and capitalism, weren't you?]

The thory you use, the criteria you use are not simple descriptions of reality they are relative to the use you put these theories to. How does a theory shed light? (cf. The absolute within the relative.)



This is less contentious but it is an example of exactly the same undialectial thinking. What is the essence of the SWP? The theory of state capitalism? Again how are we to put this defining feature to use? Ask this question first before you look for the defining feature.

I think you're getting a bit too analytical about this quote from me. I wasn't saying that state capitalism was the essence of SW, more like its defining, distinguishing feature, that distinguished it from other political groups. That this theory shed light on the nature of the USSR and capitalism, and so guided the actions and understandings of SW, not just about the USSR, but also the global economy of the postwar period and the global trend towards state capitalism, differently from other groups.

To distinguish human beings from animals is arbitrary. You can do it however you like - it does not matter. Indeed you needn't make the distinction at all. Marx makes his distinction not because it defines the hidden essence of humanity - he has not discovered an eternal truth about human nature. He makes this distinction because this distinction illuminates exactly the historical, social, economic and political questions that Marx is concerned with.

absolutely! Perhaps I shouldn't have used the words eternal truths, but I can't really see why not. What I mean by eternal truths, is solid truths, truth tht does not change over time. So, the history of ALL hitherto existing society, is the history of class struggle. That eternal/solid truth, i a foundation stone upon which you can base an analysis, and a guide to action.


However, far more interesting to me is, how is Ted grant analysis of Russia is a better guide to understanding and action?

 

[dennisr]

However, far more interesting to me is, how is Ted grant analysis of Russia is a better guide to understanding and action?

Post 81 - first para

 

[TremulousTetra]

Following Trotsky, I have given a criterion for what makes a capitalist society but it is not based on a look at what appears to be. How the economy functions, how workers are exploited etc. I have given a criterion which is class struggle based ie. it comes down to the economic and political relations between classes and ultimately between relationships between human beings. This is why an historical materialist looks at the state (not an amorphous concept such as 'society') and asks how the state stands in relation to class forces.

BTW, where did you give this?

 

[Knotted]

Knotted
I'm really not sure how to respond to your post, because it doesn't always reflect on what I meant to say.

I should say that I have gone overboard on philosophy because I thought you would find it interesting. I'm probably being overly pedantic about it all.

quite prepared to accept I'm wrong on this, as I say it is my personal perception from a limited reading. Have you read Sophie's world? For someone looking at the grand narrative of philosophy, that is how she appears of to outline, isn't it?

I'm not sure you are wrong. I'm not sure its something you can be right or wrong about. To me its more like a matter of good taste and poor taste.

I haven't read Sophie's World.

which is what I said, at least when I read of my words. And whether or not you read my words that way I do, it is what I meant to say

I meant you were wrong in your interpretation of Hegel not that you were wrong about the nature of the whole truth.

I don't know how you have interpreted what I had said, how you hve above. It certainly contradicts what I said earlier about feudal society. this is nothing like what John Rees was talking about in the algebra of revolution. What he does say is that the mode of production, which is indeed defined by the Class relations, is the whole. And yes, one cannot study the whole, without studying the parts. The parts are, the theses V anti theses, the feudal ruling class V the peasantry, the capitalist ruling class V working class. These classes with contradictory interests, making the whole dynamic, for ever in a process of change. It is an eternal truth from observation, as long as you have class society, you will have this class struggle which provides A dynamic for society. However, it is equally true to say, one cannot simply study the parts without awareness of their relationship to the whole. The society, the whole, is more than the sum of its parts. It's like the bourgeois method of reporting in the papers, where crime is reported as being totally without relationship to unemployment. And this was the point of the comrades tug of war analogy, it was merely meant to say or that the relationship is not passive, the economic base doesn't always determines superstructure. If the base always determines the superstructure, then you wouldn't have had a time when the superstructure was a "fetter on the means of production", would you? And even when the limits of this fettering is reached, there is no simple determinism. There can be a social revolution, but there can also be the common ruin of the contending classes. A destruction of both the superstructure and the economic base.

OK I can understand that. What might be helpful is to look at dynamical systems. For example modelling climate change.

Scientists will identify two different types of factor. There are forcing factors and there are feedback. Carbon dioxide is a forcing factor. Water vapour is a feedback. The reason is that once carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere it stays there. On the other hand with water vapour, if there is an increase of water vapour in the atmosphere this will still contribute to the greenhouse effect but not for long. The atmosphere absorbs a roughly fixed amount of water vapour depending on global temperatures. It is a feedback. More water vapour may lead to higher temperatures which in turn may increase carbon dioxide. However this is not the main picture which is the reverse - more carbon dioxide leads to higher temperatures (forcing) which leads to more water vapour which bumps temperatures even higher (feedback). This is the reason scientists are concerned about carbon dioxide levels but not with water vapour levels.

Here there is all sorts of feedback loops going on. Yet we can still understand things in terms of forcing factors.

There is, I think, a similar reason to view the economic base as a forcing factor and the ideological superstructure as a feedback factor. The reason is that the economic base has much more inertia. The ideological superstructure is very easy to change in comparison to the economic base.

Just a thought, as Richard Madely would say.

Agreed. And the Russian State relationship to the class forces, was the relationships of capitalism, one class controlling the means of production while another class is compelled to sell its labour. [your position is confusing, earlier you are saying he was lazy to talk of feudalism and capitalism, weren't you?]

I'm not sure I was saying it about Trotsky, but I would have if I had thought to.

The above is perfectly good. The slight difference is that state capitalism usually identifies the state itself as a capitalist exploiter. The problem is that the capitalist class itself isn't usually identified.

I think you're getting a bit too analytical about this quote from me.

Yes I think I probably was!

absolutely! Perhaps I shouldn't have used the words eternal truths, but I can't really see why not. What I mean by eternal truths, is solid truths, truth tht does not change over time. So, the history of ALL hitherto existing society, is the history of class struggle. That eternal/solid truth, i a foundation stone upon which you can base an analysis, and a guide to action.

I think if you look at philosophy (Hegelian or otherwise) you won't find a rock and if you do it won't be very good.

However, far more interesting to me is, how is Ted grant analysis of Russia is a better guide to understanding and action?

Well it gives a very coherent position on action. It advocates political revolution not social revolution. It points out that some of the tasks of the working class are already completed. It predicts the working class will defend the planned economy - even in a bureaucratic form [though I think stagnation threw this prediction, that's an excuse I know]. It gives a clear position on the USSR in war. It allows prediction of how the economy will evolve. [I think on this last point they got it quite wrong, but I've come to the conclusion that this is not a fundamental problem with the theory but rather a product of poor analysis/lack of analysis of stagnation.]

At the risk of sounding like a school teacher: Read that Hegel!

 

[Knotted]

BTW, where did you give this?

I can't remember. Maybe I dreamt it. I would say that a capitalist state is one where the bourgeoisie dominate politically and the state is geared to their rule. In this definition the bourgeoisie need not dominate economically but it helps. Think perhaps in the Napoleonic wars and capitalism is imposed from the outside onto a backward country. There will be a phase where capital does not dominate the economy.

 

[TremulousTetra]

OK I can understand that. What might be helpful is to look at dynamical systems. For example modelling climate change.

Scientists will identify two different types of factor. There are forcing factors and there are feedback. Carbon dioxide is a forcing factor. Water vapour is a feedback. The reason is that once carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere it stays there. On the other hand with water vapour, if there is an increase of water vapour in the atmosphere this will still contribute to the greenhouse effect but not for long. The atmosphere absorbs a roughly fixed amount of water vapour depending on global temperatures. It is a feedback. More water vapour may lead to higher temperatures which in turn may increase carbon dioxide. However this is not the main picture which is the reverse - more carbon dioxide leads to higher temperatures (forcing) which leads to more water vapour which bumps temperatures even higher (feedback). This is the reason scientists are concerned about carbon dioxide levels but not with water vapour levels.

Here there is all sorts of feedback loops going on. Yet we can still understand things in terms of forcing factors.

There is, I think, a similar reason to view the economic base as a forcing factor and the ideological superstructure as a feedback factor. The reason is that the economic base has much more inertia. The ideological superstructure is very easy to change in comparison to the economic base.

absolutely agree with that. That was the type of dynamic relationship between base and superstructure that I was trying to delineate. No more, no less.

The only thing I would add, that is if you read Chris Harmans, A People's History Of The World, he illustrates how the superstructure can repeatedly become top heavy, and bring the whole social system crashing down into the common ruin of the contending classes.

The above is perfectly good. The slight difference is that state capitalism usually identifies the state itself as a capitalist exploiter. The problem is that the capitalist class itself isn't usually identified.

absolutely! It's about discerning the nature of things, rather than their appearance.
It is similar wit feudalism. The nature of feudal society appearedto change, when a 'new' exploiting class emerged. Instead of owning and controlling the means of production, this new exploitative class, the church, held the means of production in common! But their relationship to the means of production remained the same as the lords and kings, they controlled it, and extorted income from the peasants. Secondly, there class relationships remained the same between the church, and the peasants, as it was between the lords and the peasants. He remained feudalism, in the same way state capitalism is capitalism.

I think if you look at philosophy (Hegelian or otherwise) you won't find a rock and if you do it won't be very good.

it depends upon which vantage point you take to survey philosophy. To draw an analogy, it's like surveying a forest. If you go down and look at each individual tree in minute detail, you're going to get a different perspective than if you look at the relationship of that forest to the global environment.

Well it gives a very coherent position on action. It advocates political revolution not social revolution. It points out that some of the tasks of the working class are already completed. It predicts the working class will defend the planned economy - even in a bureaucratic form [though I think stagnation threw this prediction, that's an excuse I know]. It gives a clear position on the USSR in war. It allows prediction of how the economy will evolve. [I think on this last point they got it quite wrong, but I've come to the conclusion that this is not a fundamental problem with the theory but rather a product of poor analysis/lack of analysis of stagnation.

it's funny, that is what I would say about the theory of state capitalism. Earlier I said it was just a throwaway comment, which it was, but also in my mind was a meeting at Marxism a couple of years ago. The theory of state capitalism, is in our opinion a watershed in the 'evolution' of Marxist analysis. It is like someone at that point in time through a die in the stream of Marxist thinking, and where ever that thinking meanders, there is a tinge of state capitalist theory. So SW theories on imperialism, economics, reformism, and class struggle in general, there is after that point a tinge of the theory of state capitalism. State Capitalism also makes sense to why the workers did not only not defend the Russian State, they overthrew it, and explains stagnation. In other words, the theory of state capitalism succeeds, even where trotsky's theories fall down. But most of all it is a guide to action. It is a guide that says not only a political revolution is necessary, but also a social revolution. It strips away the illusions of the USSR as progressive, that Ted grant wanted to cling to.

Edited to add them. An example of state capitalism effecting other theories, is the effect upon the economics. Chris Harmans book explaining the crisis, the theory of the postwar arms economy, is pretty unintelligible without an acceptance of state capitalism.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I can't remember. Maybe I dreamt it. I would say that a capitalist state is one where the bourgeoisie dominate politically and the state is geared to their rule. In this definition the bourgeoisie need not dominate economically but it helps. Think perhaps in the Napoleonic wars and capitalism is imposed from the outside onto a backward country. There will be a phase where capital does not dominate the economy.

yes that was an example I was going to give earlier, where the superstructure runs around Europe, Imposing on large swathes of Europe a new mode of production. However, this does not negate what you are saying, about the economic base being the 'forcing factor'.

 

[Knotted]

absolutely agree with that. That was the type of dynamic relationship between base and superstructure that I was trying to delineate. No more, no less.

Well I would reject the tug of war metaphor because it is too symmetrical ie. you have two similar people pulling on each end of the rope. The economic base and the ideological superstructure are not similar.

The existence of a complex dynamic does not preclude you from identifying a factor which enables you to understand that dynamic even if the dynamic itself is impossible to model completely (cf chaos theory). In climate science it is impossible to make accurate weather forcasts more than a week in advance - but we can still model and predict changes in global tempertures.

The only thing I would add, that is if you read Chris Harmans, A People's History Of The World, he illustrates how the superstructure can repeatedly become top heavy, and bring the whole social system crashing down into the common ruin of the contending classes.

That's very standard historical materialism. To put it in dynamical terms - the superstructure starts out as a positive feedback but ends up becoming a negative feedback.

I should warn that this dynamical theory is just an analogy. We are making this too scientific. There is something philosophically important that we are missing.

Marx rejects philosophical idealism and he does this in a curious and very satisfying (IMO) way. He rejects any science of ideas. To talk about ideas and ideologies is not to talk in precise, meaningful terms unless we can relate these terms to the relation of men to each other and to their social environment. We cannot talk about ideas in the abstract in any scientific way at all. So when we look at the legal and political superstructure even though we are looking at very material institutions we can only understand these institutions in relation to the economic base they rest on. We cannot understand them in terms of the ideas of the members or the founders of these insitutions. It would be like trying to understand the redness of a red ball in terms of the concept of redness rather than the properties of the material that the ball is made up from.

Marx (Preface):

The first work which I undertook to dispel the doubts assailing me was a critical re-examination of the Hegelian philosophy of law; the introduction to this work being published in the Deutsch-Franzosische Jahrbucher issued in Paris in 1844. My inquiry led me to the conclusion that neither legal relations nor political forms could be comprehended whether by themselves or on the basis of a so-called general development of the human mind, but that on the contrary they originate in the material conditions of life,...

This statement is perhaps stronger than it looks. Marx isn't merely saying that the dynamical change of legal and political forms cannot be comprehended or predicted in their own terms or in terms of the development of the human mind. He isn't merely saying that he can see no way to model their evolution in such terms. He is saying that it is impossible to make sense at all of them in such terms.

I base this conclusion by reading the German Ideology. See for example:

We have shown [in Chapter 1] that thoughts and ideas acquire an independent existence in consequence of the personal circumstances and relations of individuals acquiring independent existence. We have shown that exclusive, systematic occupation with these thoughts on the part of ideologists and philosophers, and hence the systemization of these thoughts, is a consequence of division of labour, and that, in particular, German philosophy is a consequence of German petty-bourgeois conditions. The philosophers have only to dissolve their language into the ordinary language, from which it is abstracted, in order to recognize it as the distorted language of the actual world and to realize that neither thoughts nor language in themselves form a realm of their own, that they are only manifestations of actual life.

When Tony Cliff talks about the total fusion of economics and politics he is not making a scientific error he is making a philosophical error. It would be like saying that a red ball is the fusion of a ball with redness.

Having said all this I think there is a scientific (ie. empirically testable) content to historical materialism. Even if it is impossible to understand the political and legal superstructure except in terms of the economic base this does not mean that we can say a priori that there is a particular causal relation from one to the other. This is an empirical observation which can be falsified IMO. I think it is nevertheless a reasonable empirical observation. I think, however, that a problem with Marx is that he too readily confuses this scientific content of historical materialism with the philosophical critique of idealism.

absolutely! It's about discerning the nature of things, rather than their appearance.
It is similar wit feudalism. The nature of feudal society appearedto change, when a 'new' exploiting class emerged. Instead of owning and controlling the means of production, this new exploitative class, the church, held the means of production in common! But their relationship to the means of production remained the same as the lords and kings, they controlled it, and extorted income from the peasants. Secondly, there class relationships remained the same between the church, and the peasants, as it was between the lords and the peasants. He remained feudalism, in the same way state capitalism is capitalism.

OK I can agree with that but I think that you need to identify a capitalist class. See Marx on Pre-Capitalist Economic Formations

it depends upon which vantage point you take to survey philosophy. To draw an analogy, it's like surveying a forest. If you go down and look at each individual tree in minute detail, you're going to get a different perspective than if you look at the relationship of that forest to the global environment.

Hmmm. You should read some philosophy. I don't say this because I think everyone should, but I think you would gain from it and I think you are well capable of understanding it. Really read those bits I recommended! You have no reason to feel intimidated by them.

it's funny, that is what I would say about the theory of state capitalism.
Earlier I said it was just a throwaway comment, which it was, but also in my mind was a meeting at Marxism a couple of years ago. The theory of state capitalism, is in our opinion a watershed in the 'evolution' of Marxist analysis. It is like someone at that point in time through a die in the stream of Marxist thinking, and where ever that thinking meanders, there is a tinge of state capitalist theory. So SW theories on imperialism, economics, reformism, and class struggle in general, there is after that point a tinge of the theory of state capitalism.

I can see that. Permanent Arms Economy has a state capitalist tinge for example. It does show a drift away from Marxist orthodoxy. I wouldn't mind, but it seems very odd that there is no critique of Marxist orthodoxy.

State Capitalism also makes sense to why the workers did not only not defend the Russian State, they overthrew it, and explains stagnation. In other words, the theory of state capitalism succeeds, even where trotsky's theories fall down. But most of all it is a guide to action. It is a guide that says not only a political revolution is necessary, but also a social revolution. It strips away the illusions of the USSR as progressive, that Ted grant wanted to cling to.

I think you are right about state capitalism explaining why the workers did not defend the Russian state, but I don't think state capitalism gives an explanation of stagnation. Stagnation was not a cyclical crisis. I would recommend reading Kotz and Weir - Revolution from Above: Demise of the Soviet System. Essentially stagnation was the result of the difficulties faced in switching from a system of increasing extensive production to a system which increases intensive production. The problems were structural - not to do with the limits of capitalist growth, nor for that matter to do with the limits of a bureaucratically planned economy. Indeed the problems might have been overcome. Also Trotsky is more insightful than any of the later Trotskyist on this sort of question. See the section on The Stakhanov Movement in Revolution Betrayed.

Edited to add them. An example of state capitalism effecting other theories, is the effect upon the economics. Chris Harmans book explaining the crisis, the theory of the postwar arms economy, is pretty unintelligible without an acceptance of state capitalism.

I haven't read the book, but what you here say makes a lot of sense.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Good Post!! I'll come back to it, just;;;;;;

"Hmmm. You should read some philosophy. I don't say this because I think everyone should, but I think you would gain from it and I think you are well capable of understanding it. read those bits I recommended! You have no reason to feel intimidated by them."



I started to read it the other day, I only got about four paragraphs in, and felt literally like my mind was plunging into quicksand, stultifying any intelectual engagement, so alien was the language. Not so much intimidated, as I cant be bothered with such hard work. I'd much rather have somebody interpret it for me, like Sophie's world. Even better, an idiot's guide to philosophy, Sophie's World.

Sorry,

 

[Knotted]

I started to read it the other day, I only got about four paragraphs in, and felt literally like my mind was plunging into quicksand, stultifying any intelectual engagement, so alien was the language. Not so much intimidated, as I cant be bothered with such hard work. I'd much rather have somebody interpret it for me, like Sophie's world. Even better, an idiot's guide to philosophy, Sophie's World.

Sorry,

Keep reading. Don't try to understand every word or even most words! You'll pick up roughly what it's about on the first read. Every subsequent time you look at it, it will make more sense. Osmosis.

 

[butchersapron]

For durritti: (i've been googling to find relatively short - easy to swallow in one chunk - articles

A critical review of the Orlando Figes book, A People’s Tragedy:

Some more reviews:

The professor, his wife, and the secret, savage book reviews on Amazon

An extraordinary literary "whodunnit" over the identity of a mystery reviewer who savaged works by some of Britain's leading academics on the Amazon website has culminated in a top historian admitting that the culprit was, in fact, his wife.

Prof Orlando Figes, 50, an expert on Russia and professor of history at Birkbeck College, London, made the startling revelation in a statement through lawyers following a week of intrigue, suspicion, legal threats and angry email exchanges over postings on the website's UK book review pages.

Indeed, "Historian", who it transpired also generated a profile on the Amazon website under the username "Orlando-Birkbeck", had not only rubbished Polonsky's book, but also other works going back years and including books by Oxford University's Robert Service, biographer of Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin. The book on Trotsky was a "dull read", that on Stalin "disappointing" and his history of communism derided as "rubbish" and "an awful book".

By contrast, Figes's 2008 work, The Whisperer, was, according to Historian, a "beautiful and necessary" account of the Soviet system, penned by a man possessed of "superb story-telling skills" with this eulogy ending with the fervent wish: "I hope he writes for ever."

 

[cogg]

Some more reviews:

The professor, his wife, and the secret, savage book reviews on Amazon

I'm not sure who's the most pathetic, the woman who wrote them or the writers who got worked up about them.